Fan Wen (1) Respondent: Dongguan XX Hardware and Electrical Appliance Co., Ltd., domicile: XX Industrial Zone, Wangniudun Town, Dongguan City, and legal representative: Du XX.
Authorized Agent: Zeng Yongqian, lawyer of Guangdong Fan Li Law Firm.
Respondent: Zeng XX,No. 13, Tang Xue Street Village, Banzhudang Town, Gongan County, Hubei Province, with the ID number of 42102219881107xxx.
The respondent raised the following defenses against the labor dispute in this case:
According to the relevant provisions of Article 20 of the Regulations on Work-related Injury Insurance and Article 16 of the Regulations on Work-related Injury Insurance in Guangdong Province, Dongguan Social Security Bureau shall notify the respondent in writing after making the work-related injury determination, and Dongguan Labor Ability Appraisal Committee shall also notify the respondent in writing after making the work-related ability determination. But up to now, the respondent has not received the work-related injury certificate issued by Dongguan Social Security Bureau or the appraisal certificate issued by Dongguan Labor Ability Appraisal Committee. It was not until your institute delivered the arbitration documents related to this case to the respondent on May 20, 2008 that you knew that the relevant authorities had made the Certificate of Work Injury and the Certificate of Appraisal of Dongguan Labor Ability Appraisal Committee.
According to the Regulations on Work-related Injury Insurance, Regulations on Work-related Injury Insurance in Guangdong Province, Administrative Reconsideration Law and Administrative Procedure Law, the respondent who refuses to accept the determination of work-related injury has the right to apply for administrative reconsideration and administrative litigation, and who refuses to accept the conclusion of disability grade and labor ability appraisal has the right to apply for review and re-appraisal. At present, the respondent is applying for administrative reconsideration of work-related injury identification according to law, and applying for re-examination and re-appraisal of disability grade and labor ability appraisal conclusion.
In view of the above situation in this case, according to the provisions of Article 29 of the Labor Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), we hereby request your hospital to reject the case, suspend the trial or reject the arbitration request of the respondent.
Respondent: Dongguan XX Hardware and Electrical Appliance Co., Ltd.
Authorized Agent: Zeng Yongqian, lawyer of Guangdong Fan Li Law Firm.
Model essay on the defense of industrial injury labor dispute (II) Respondent: XXXXXXXX Co., Ltd.
Company address:No. XXX Road, Economic Development Zone, XX City, and telephone number: XXXXXXXX.
Legal representative: XXX
Authorized Agent: XXX, XXXXXXXX Co., Ltd. (as a post)
Respondent: XXX, female, born in19x65438+1year1month, Han nationality.
Address: Group X, XX Village, XX Township, XX County, XX Province.
Request a reply
1. Request your committee to reject the arbitration request of the respondent.
Facts and reasons
Defendant XXX entered the respondent's unit on September 1999. The last time both parties signed a labor contract was on March 1 day, 2008, with a term of five years, that is, from March 1 day, 2008 to February 29, 20 13.
The respondent asked for leave from the supervisor of the production department on March 8, 2009 for one month, that is, from March 6, 2009 to April 7, 2009. After the expiration of the leave period, the respondent did not go to work in the respondent's unit, or went through the leave formalities again. Until 65438 on February 23rd of the same year, the respondent appeared in the respondent's unit again, claiming that he was ill and went home for treatment. The Respondent requested the Respondent to provide relevant treatment certificates and sick leave certificates, but the Respondent was unable to provide them. The Respondent asked the Respondent to complete the relevant treatment and sick leave certificates, but the Respondent not only failed to complete the relevant certificates, but also made unreasonable noise in the Respondent's production workshop, which seriously affected the Respondent's normal production and caused certain losses.
During the period from March 9, 2009 to February 23, 2009, the respondent could not find the respondent, resulting in the respondent's salary not being paid. After the Respondent came to the Respondent's company at 65438 on February 23rd, 2009, the Respondent demanded to pay the above salary to the Respondent, which was also sternly rejected by the Respondent.
The social insurance of the respondent has been paid by the respondent until now, without interruption. And the respondent has never told or implied that the labor contract should be terminated with the respondent orally or in writing.
To sum up, the labor contract between the respondent and the respondent has not been terminated or dissolved, and the facts complained by the respondent are pure fabrication and falsehood. Request your commission to arbitrate according to law, rejected.
I am here to convey
XX labor dispute arbitration commission